Later editions, starting with 2e, had wizards that had different specializations; and then the later editions of course had multiple classes of wizard.

Even AD&D1e had the Illusionist as a separate wizard class altogether.

So, when you're running an OSR game, do you just want all your wizards to be the same, and distinguished mainly by what spells the Player chooses for them?

Or do you like an OSR game that has several distinct versions of the wizard, either in terms of specializations or separate classes?

Generally speaking, I prefer different magic-using classes.  Wasn't a big fan of specialty wizards though.
I preferred stuff like:
The Black/White/Red robes of Krynn
The Shek-Pvar of Harn
The colour mages of Warhammer (more in theory than practice)

Probably the best OSR breakdown I like right now is AS&SH2.

It was one of the features of Ars Magica, when it first was released, that you had this game based around Wizards in which they had a real variety of styles and affiliation type. More recent versions of D&D have emphasised the differences of the schools, as well as new classes in the form of Sorcerers and Warlocks. Indeed, in 5E, almost every class has some sort of magical aspect or options to them. On the whole, I like this, although it does fix the implied setting towards being very high magic.

In terms of OSR, also, it really depends on the setting you are trying to create. I would actually like to see less casting classes overall, but take some of the options created in D&D and consolidate them as options within classes. So, for example, I could see the Sorcerer being merged with a Wizard, but developing an option for a more spontaneous caster as a Wizard style. I'd probably like to keep something akin to a Warlock - possibly renamed as a Witch - to provide an alternative tradition to Wizards in my game, in the same way that Druids provide an alternative to Clerics.

For the other Classes, including Bards, I'd try to reduce the spell casting options to a minimum in order to return magical primacy to the Wizards Class - but I'd try to develop a level-based system for choosing from a list of varied traits to allow you to customise Wizards (and Witches too, to a degree). If you want to play an armour clad Wizard, for example, you should be able to choose a trait for this at a certain level. If you want to specialise in a particular style of wizardry, then again, having traits to help define that would be workable. While choosing from a variety of spells with a particular theme, like illusions, is quite fun - I'd like to see this backed up with customising traits for the flavour too.

My literary background (As in I read too much when I was younger) I'm more of a 'specialist' type of wizard fan.  Stories tend to have 'single school' wizards, typically called things like Necromancers, or Oracles (Diviners), Enchantresses and the like.

I love, love, love specialist mages. I feel they have so much more flavor.

Unfortunately, players seem to prefer generalists.

Im ok either way. Either a single all encompasing wizard you can make of what you will without rules in the way. Specializations can work just fine as long as they dont get too cumbersome. I thinl 5e D&D did an overall ok job of it. Some of the specialist perks seem a little... odd. But mechanically its not intrusive or restrictive. They just get a little extra boost in their chosen field.

I don't care for hard-coded class based distinctions or specialty versions, read just increased power levels.   I'd rather the differences emerge form play and player choice.   To me, the concepts in TFT are the most attractive.

BTW in AD&D we often just ignored the illusionist and might wrap some of those spells into Magic User.

For OSR play I use B/X where using specialist wizards seems besides the point although I was a fan of them in 2e. I agree with Ckruger about the setting specific white/red/black wizards of DL, one of the best additions in the setting.

I tend to prefer having just one class, and then having different magic-using organizations or schools or sects or what-have-you in the actual setting, that may modify how the class works.

I think the AD&D Illusionist is a great class, with a remarkable amount of unique flavour derived from only a few, relatively small tweaks.

AD&D 2E specialists are fine in principle, although less interesting IMO. The big drawback is they were an outlet for the philosophy that "the magic user is too weak and boring at low levels" and one of the early forms of damaging power creep.

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016525I tend to prefer having just one class, and then having different magic-using organizations or schools or sects or what-have-you in the actual setting, that may modify how the class works.

Such as the College of Magicians under Dokhon, or the necromancers of the rival College of Khan and their servants of living stone, the rockmen.

If you don't know what those are, you should ask yourself, ""What is Dungeons and Dragons?" Or ask John Butterfield and his pals.

Quote from: Vile;1016561Such as the College of Magicians under Dokhon, or the necromancers of the rival College of Khan and their servants of living stone, the rockmen.

If you don't know what those are, you should ask yourself, ""What is Dungeons and Dragons?" Or ask John Butterfield and his pals.

Post links or you are just being a duck.  

Those do sound interesting though.

For a long time I had different orders of magic for the Majestic Wilderlands. When it came time to write this stuff of for OD&D in the form of Sword and Wizardry, I opted to handle it the differences by having different magic user classes.

My first major design principle was not to screw around with the spells themselves. There are dozens of spells and if I did something that caused me to have to touch each and every spells that would be a major downside for the supplement.

Second I decided that the memorization system was the pinnacle of magic among the mortal races like humans. All the alternatives are inferior in one way or another.

To this end I decided that the original form of magic was ritual magic. You hade a ritual book, could cast any spell out of it but at a cost of a ten minute ritual and a material component cost. 10d times spell level squared.

As Ritual Casters, known as Artificers, gained levels they could cast higher level spells as rituals. At 17th level they can cast ninth level spells as rituals. The only way to use spells in combat was through scrolls, wands, or magic items.

After the Uttermost War at the dawn of time the demon were imprisoned in the Abyss sealed in by the Chromatic Crystals placed by the Gods. The Cromatic Crystals took the ambient level of mana and channeled it to create the barrier seal and the. released back into the world in a concentrated form. This made memorized spells possible.

At first only clerics were able to take advantage of this. The first human civilizations were heavily theocratic so this was little room for any type of magic outside of the temples to exist. Those who did labored on as artificers and hedge mages.

The Elves however took advantage of the concentrated mana and learned wizardry which function much like 3.5 sorcerers. You "know" a limited range of spells but can pick whatever ones you like to cast through your spell slots. The downside is that while known spells could be changed it was a process of relearning that took decades. Not a problem for immortal Elves but a major downside for shorter lived races like humans.

Over the millenniums as civilizations developed variant ritual casters developed like the runecasters of the dwarves and their northern human allies. They used runes which allowed them to pack more spells onto a physical objec than a traditional scroll. Also an order  Theurgists developed in service to the empire of one civilization. They could combine caster levels while ritual casting which served their empire well on the battlefield as support.

Magic User arose a few centuries ago after a major empire fell and its associated religion fell apart in civil war and collapsed. Freed from control of the temple hierarchy, arcane spell casters were free to experiment and combine the various magical traditions. The result was the memorization system of the magic user class. The focus on memorization meant that spell slots had to be memorized with specific spells and rituals casting could only be taught up to4th level spells. Or 1/2 of the highest level that can be memorized rounded down.

The upshot of all this means that a lot of flavor can be created for magic with only a few tweaks to the core rules. And also as long as one is willing to say fuck balance and focus on writing up how it looks like to an inhabitant of the setting and making the rules reflect that.

All of the details for this is in my Majestic Wilderlands supplement.
http://www.batintheattic.com/majesticwilderlands.php

This year I plan to release a follow up called the Lost Grimoire of Magic.

estar, that is some grade AAA metaphysics tied into your setting/game-rule conceits. Bravo. That is what I like about Earthdawn and the other games that bend the game-rules towards their setting/metaphysics. Well done. I should go and find an overview of the history of magic in Earthdawn...

Quote from: RPGPundit;1016525I tend to prefer having just one class, and then having different magic-using organizations or schools or sects or what-have-you in the actual setting, that may modify how the class works.

+1. Flavor trumps mechanics for me, though I really did like 2E specialist mages. These days, I treat them as something like clerics, in that each organization is devoted to different ideals, which directs the type of magic they use.  It's much more evocative, I think, to be a wizard that belongs to the "Learned Uncles" (knowledge) or the "Red Temple" (war) than it is to just have the plain ol' Wizard. On that, I find having a single casting class preferable to the wizard/cleric division. If a player wants to be some sort of clericy type caster, then fine. Come up with the order's ideals, then we'll figure out what the spells should be.

Of course, I have had players who view magic as nothing more than a set of various "I win" problem-solving buttons. Take Invis, so they can be sneaky. Take Teleport, so they can negate the perils of travel, and so on. I find that, if you make magic risky in some way, this mitigates that view (especially when TP takes you through another dimension, that you might get lost in, in you're not careful).